Rules: - Rate from 0.1 to 10 (two decimal places are fine, more than that and I'll round for you). I'd prefer if 5 were an average rather than 7. - You may vote for any games you want that have been rated before at any time. You may also change your vote at any time. - No alts, no joke voting, no “purposeful downvoting” - you all know this. - Please only vote if you've played enough of the game to be able to rate it. - You may nominate as many games as you want on any given day. Multiple noms of the same game aren't necessary. Spreadsheet with prior games/ratings: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Ap-Cxjhwem1PdFR5Wk1NUkhDX3NmM3NIU1hVaFFZY2c&hl=en_US#gid=0
For a myriad of reasons that people have brought up with me over time, and I agree on several accounts.
Actually, changing the maximum to 10.1 makes no sense. For 5.0 to be the absolute average, the scale has to be 0.1 - 10.0. Under the previous rating system, a 4.9 was the absolute average and under your suggested system, the absolute average would be 5.1
Is this some bad april fools joke or something.
Unless "absolute average" is some obscure math term that google and wikipedia do not recognize, the average of all possible scores on a 0.1-10.0 scale is 5.05 and the average of a 0-10 scale is 5.
Anyway 3.5 for this game.
(protip this is where you pass it off as one to save face and put the rating scale back to 0-10)
-- No problem! This is a cute and pop genocide of love!
Well, two things stood out for me when people were asking for me to do something about all the zeroes:
1. "It is unfair"
I do think that it's unfair. I haven't played the likes of Big Rigs or Custer's Revenge, but a zero appears to be an irrational vote. I am not looking for complete objectivity in ratings or anything, but I wish for people to use some common sense and actually think about their how they would rate a game. A zero just appears as a lazy rating with absolutely no thought to it. Thus, it's unfair to the game.
2. "It makes no sense"
I attempted to rationalize what a game that deserved to receive a zero would be like. I came up with this: I start the game up and literally after playing it for one second, I walk away. Even then, it may need to be worse than that. A zero game means that it doesn't have any positive, above-average, average, neutral, or poor qualities. Every. and I mean every, facet of it has to be abysmal to the point that would regret spending even one second on that game for the rest of my life and be embarrassed to mention to anyone that I actually played that game.
Is changing the minimum to 0.1 going to make a huge difference? No, but it's the principle that counts as it makes sense, on several levels, and is fair. Rate the Game is never going to be how I envisioned it, but little things like this make it closer to that image
If people want to give games a zero, that's on them. You forcing everyone to give every game a bare minimum is absurd. By your logic, someone giving Ocarina or FF7 10/10 is unfair, irrational, lazy, etc.
I gave FF13 a 0/10 because that's how I felt about it as a game on percentages out of 100%. I don't think it's a 0.10/10; I think it's an objective 0/10 as a video game.
There are some people out there who think Uncharted 2 and Starcraft are 0's.
Stop this affirmative action crap.
--
Genesis does what Nintendon't http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7nsBoqJ6s8
From: Lopen | #017 Is this some bad april fools joke or something.
Unless "absolute average" is some obscure math term that google and wikipedia do not recognize, the average of all possible scores on a 0.1-10.0 scale is 5.05 and the average of a 0-10 scale is 5.
I think that you could be right when I use the two decimal place rule. When you use only one decimal place, I am pretty sure that the median, meant to use that term instead of average, score is 5.0
From: KCF0107 | #021 I think that you could be right when I use the two decimal place rule. When you use only one decimal place, I am pretty sure that the median, meant to use that term instead of average, score is 5.0
Um... no, you're wrong. The median of all possible scores is also 5.05-- median and average of a range of scores will be the same unless you have a specific sample to work with.
I'm not sure why you're against 0s being irrational when it's clear people don't fully think out their 10s either. Westbrick just gave 6 games a 10 in this topic. Do you think he thinks each and every one of those games is completely flawless, or that he just likes them a lot and so gave them a 10 without thinking much?
If you want to make scores more likely to be closer to the 5 average, you should make us rate from like... 0-8 instead of 0-10 because b8 is overly generous with points even without you boosting the minimum score.
-- No problem! This is a cute and pop genocide of love!
I gave FF13 a 0/10 because that's how I felt about it as a game on percentages out of 100%. I don't think it's a 0.10/10; I think it's an objective 0/10 as a video game.
For this opinion to make any modicum of sense, you'd have to completely discount the wonderful graphics/score. Beyond that, the gameplay engine and plot may not be your cup of tea, but they're well done and functional, which is more than I can say of something like Big Rigs or Superman 64.
-- Tebow to Jests? http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m19b15IB731qzdb47o1_400.png
A 0 doesn't mean a game is non functional, just like a 10 doesn't mean a game is perfect.
A 10 means a game is pushing boundaries, expanding a genre, and doing many things to a level so far above and beyond its competitors that they overshadows any flaws. No game I've given a 10 to so far has been flawless. And the exact OPPOSITE of all this goes for a 0. A 0 doesn't have to be E.T.
The graphics of FF13 were anything but "good". I guess they were impressive from a technical standpoint, but the enemies still looked like overly busy Bayformers. And the score was painfully ungreat. There has never been a more generic, forgettable battle theme in FF history.
My 0 for FF13 has less to do with it being as bad as E.T. and more about it completely betraying it's genre, the series' legacy, and the entire philosophy of games =/= movies.
--
Genesis does what Nintendon't http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7nsBoqJ6s8
Not really arguing for FF13, but there are plenty of games I can think of that are basically completely linear and fine
Double Dragon 1/2/3 Contra/Super C TMNT 2/3/Turtles in Time Castlevania/Super Castlevania
I'm sure there are some comparable RPGs too but I can't think of any that are completely linear and don't really want to get into degrees of linearity. I guess Arcana for the SNES fits the bill but your mileage may vary on whether that game is decent or not.
-- No problem! This is a cute and pop genocide of love!
I do think that it's unfair. I haven't played the likes of Big Rigs or Custer's Revenge, but a zero appears to be an irrational vote. I am not looking for complete objectivity in ratings or anything, but I wish for people to use some common sense and actually think about their how they would rate a game. A zero just appears as a lazy rating with absolutely no thought to it. Thus, it's unfair to the game.
What fairness does Big Rigs deserve? it's flat-out not a finished game
please remove all my ratings if you are going forward with this
--
Donny: Are they gonna hurt us, Walter? Walter: No, Donny. These men are cowards.
I totally agree on the fact that giving a 0 to an already PLAYED game is absurd. 0 is a non-existent vote, so it shouldn't be counted as an actual vote... because it represents nothing, other than the fact that you actually haven't played such game. 0.1 makes sense to the degree that it may be handled as the minimal vote you could ever give to a game. It's just common sense. It doesn't have to do anything with fanatism or guys that give out 10/10s just like that. Those are extremely different topics you have there.
Anyway, 7/10 for Excitebike
-- SuperNiceDog waggs his tail better than your regular, standard dog.